It was pretty clear that the author hadn't watched the series, let alone read the books, when he brought out the "wracked by guilt over a brief extramarital affair" line, since even the TV series makes it pretty clear that Jon Snow is either the son of Eddard's sister by King Robert or one of the lost children of the Targaryen house, with the whole "bastard" deal being an attempt to protect him until he can be stuck in the Night's Watch (which voids any claim to the throne and puts him beyond the reach of politics for the most part).

And, to be fair, Tyrion goes from Chaotic Neutral to Lawful Good over the course of the series, which is how you know he's the actual protagonist in spite of what Martin seems to think. So True Neutral may be a good average there.

Frothy Panties:Icetech3: Man.. i just finished book 3 and its farking BRUTAL... EVERYONE dies..... every page is like WTF!!!! BTW.... you can't spoil shiat the books have been out for 20 years... read them.. 100X better than the show...

The thing I've noticed about the books..so far...it that those who have any sense of decency are not vanquished by battle, but only by deception and treachery.

And pretty much anyone that's described as attractive, and not disfigured, is kind of a dick.

How many deaths has she seen, and ignored, just to get her way? She's shown an amazing disregard for anything but her own well-being and advancement.

Eh. I see the Evil alignments (Good ones, too) as requiring the person to actively pursue them. Sansa doesn't go out of her way to be a biatch, she just ends up being one through happenstance coupled with horrible, horrible foresight. Compare her motivations to Cersei, who I see as a pretty sterling example of Neutral Evil in the series.

Jim_Callahan:clear that Jon Snow is either the son of Eddard's sister by King Robert or one of the lost children of the Targaryen house

Since this is the widely held theory that is probably accurate and more or less exactly what Martin has had planned, I have this feeling Martin will change course and reveal he really is just the son of Eddard and some random gal, or more likely simply leave it entirely unanswered.

How many deaths has she seen, and ignored, just to get her way? She's shown an amazing disregard for anything but her own well-being and advancement.

See, I have to disagree. While normally, with an intelligent player, I would tend to agree with you. But Sansa has just barely has enough of an INT score to speak and indentify colors. In all other respected, I would make her akin to highly aware animal, but still an animal. They are just following their natural urges and cannot be held accountable for not be conginzant of the social rules that bind all the other, smarter animals that look like them.

Mike Chewbacca:They [LE] use the laws not because they believe in them, but because that's the easiest, safest way for them to get what they want.

No, that's NE ("by any means"). Even CE will use the law if it's the path of least resistance. The ability to see law as a means to an end is a function of intelligence, not alignment. The difference is that CE has an inherent distaste for law, and NE has no real regard for it. But both, if clever, will operate within the law for even years if they see it as a way to get what they want.

"Lawful" implies some level of devotion to law, not use of it. For example, a politically ambitious DA or a sadistic "by the book" cop. They LOVE the law, and will throw the book at anyone who questions them. They don't see the law as a means of solving problems or improving anything, but they thrive within the system. All factors being equal, the law is their preferred method. They like to have the rules on their side.

On a crude level:CE will hit you with a blunt object when no one's looking, law be damned.NE might hit you with a blunt object if no one's looking, but will definitely do so if it's legal. Or might exploit a loophole like self-defense.LE will work to make it legal for anyone to hit you with a blunt object. Actually, they might make it REQUIRED that you're beaten with a blunt object.

As a result, I daresay LE is more hungry for political power than CE. Your corporate executive, career politician. . . they're more likely to be LE because they're the sort to gravitate to those positions (which only go to those who badly want them).

Sorry, a little more detail. Take a case where some CE person in a safe town is hard up for some cash. He could just mug someone on the street, and frankly that's his natural inclination. But say there's some badly-written law that allows people to spam a "crime prevention" anonymous tip line for cash rewards. . . we're talking, like $500 a phone call, no questions asked (so, a VERY badly written law). The guy could walk around town for an hour or two, risk getting caught by the police for a wallet that might contain a few bucks. . . or spend a half an hour on the phone giving bogus tips and making serious cash.

The amateur role-player will assume the CE guy will just mug someone, because. . . he's chaotic. But that's not chaotic; that's retarded. If such a stupid rule is in place and the CE guy is NOT a moron, he'll go for the easy money. If anything, the CE guy will say something like, "I'm just showing how stupid this law is."

Don't confuse alignment with principle. Even a paladin will engage in civil disobedience if the situation calls for it.

For a LG paladin, this could be the code of his God to do certain things and abide by those rules. If that same paladin lives in a location where the laws of the land are in direct violation of his mores, he does not become chaotic by following those laws.

Some would be for a LE character living in a communtiy that extolls good virtues by force of law. If their diabolical lord demands things like a sacrifce of a virgin every full moon, he will do it, no matter that murder is illegal in his community.

A conflict between two Gods is also why two LG paladin could very easily battle one another while still remaining both lawful and good.

The actual use of civil law is entirely incidental to a characters actual alignment.

mongbiohazard:Warrener: Anyone that when given a choice between keeping the acknowledged heir on the throne or throwing the kindom into a bloody civil war with Winter coming sure as hell isn't good.

You're confusing Lawful Good with Lawful Nice. Paladins are lawful good and they can be some serious a-holes. Nothing like strict rigidity to some god's moral code to excuse the trampling of rights or even lives.

Yo' daaaaaaamn right!

/Even though I personally think the Scarlet Crusade is freakin' awesome.

How many deaths has she seen, and ignored, just to get her way? She's shown an amazing disregard for anything but her own well-being and advancement.

She's just surviving. She was, at the beginning of the story, a perfect spoiled naive princess. She believed knights were noble and good, love was like the songs and if she learned to be good and proper that life would be perfect with a gallant young man who would become king.

This is where the lack of interior monologue destroys her character. It might help you to know that she believes nothing that has come out of her mouth since the day Joffrey beheaded her father. They had a perfect opportunity to correct it but haven't shown her relationship with the Hound at all. The Hound finds her parroting what the Lannisters want to hear grimly amusing and taunts her about it when drunk, he calls her "little bird".

She's a not so bright girl who trusted the glib words of the pretty people (Jeoffrey, Cersi) at the wrong time and ends up paying a hard price for it, along with alot of others.

She is indeed bone numbingly stupid but evil? She didn't even know what it was she was so naive and innocent

wingnut396:Lawful means a character has a code or set of rules they live by.

That IS devotion to law. I didn't specify civil law; I used it for convenience. However, in the case of LE (where I disagree with the notion that they merely use the law as a tool), how does this contradict my point? Actually, this weakens the conventional definition of LE even further, as LE characters certainly aren't guided by any ethical code. In absence of empathy or related concepts like honor or morality, written law is about the only thing any LE character can glom to. Contrary to expectations, it's in fact the lawful good characters that have more flexibility, as there's no guarantee law will correlate with morality or ethics. In which case we're in perfect agreement.

How many deaths has she seen, and ignored, just to get her way? She's shown an amazing disregard for anything but her own well-being and advancement.

She's just surviving. She was, at the beginning of the story, a perfect spoiled naive princess. She believed knights were noble and good, love was like the songs and if she learned to be good and proper that life would be perfect with a gallant young man who would become king.

This is where the lack of interior monologue destroys her character. It might help you to know that she believes nothing that has come out of her mouth since the day Joffrey beheaded her father. They had a perfect opportunity to correct it but haven't shown her relationship with the Hound at all. The Hound finds her parroting what the Lannisters want to hear grimly amusing and taunts her about it when drunk, he calls her "little bird".

She's a not so bright girl who trusted the glib words of the pretty people (Jeoffrey, Cersi) at the wrong time and ends up paying a hard price for it, along with alot of others.

She is indeed bone numbingly stupid but evil? She didn't even know what it was she was so naive and innocent

Really? She's willing to let the butcher's son die in order to help Joff save face, even though she knew that Joff had goaded the kid into a duel. She could have easily saved him by telling the truth - which would have cost Joff very little - but doing so would have jeopardized her chances to play princess.

Let's repeat that, okay? She was willing to let an innocent person die so that she could be a princess. She allowed an innocent person to die for her own gain. She was in no physical danger if she told the truth. It was only her own gain that was in danger. And it wasn't even just passive - she had to actually *lie* and state that the boy attacked Joff.

She was willing to let Arya's wolf die, even though it had done nothing but defend the butcher boy from getting beat by Joff. She only complained when it was *her* wolf that got killed.

She *knows* full well that Littlefinger killed Lysa, and allows the bard to die instead, even though she had opportunities to tell the truth with no consequences to her.

She betrays her own father to Cersei because she wants to be all happy and royal and lovey with Joff.

Almost every bad thing that happens to her is a direct result of her own actions. She consistently is willing to let others die. She is evil.

(I actually think Sansa is a brilliant character, in that she is so throroughly evil, but comes across as so innocent and such a victim.)

dragonchild:wingnut396: Lawful means a character has a code or set of rules they live by.

That IS devotion to law. I didn't specify civil law; I used it for convenience. However, in the case of LE (where I disagree with the notion that they merely use the law as a tool), how does this contradict my point? Actually, this weakens the conventional definition of LE even further, as LE characters certainly aren't guided by any ethical code. In absence of empathy or related concepts like honor or morality, written law is about the only thing any LE character can glom to. Contrary to expectations, it's in fact the lawful good characters that have more flexibility, as there's no guarantee law will correlate with morality or ethics. In which case we're in perfect agreement.

In most respects I do agree with what you say. What I disgree with is the notion that evil cannot have a code of ethics or some unwritten lawful code. I believe in such an environment where evil is the norm, there would most certianly be some sort of unwritten ethics or mores that would comprise the unspoken law. We just, thankfully, lack such perspective. In the planes of hell, I imagine there would be analogs to honor or morality, but could a person not steeped in it that culture recognize it?

To futher that, even good characters often need such laws written down. That is the purpose of most holy books in the real world that claim to be distributed by a good and just god.

But in the end, yes, I don't think our POVs are very far off. I think a lot of the chatter about Joffery being able to make the civil law, therefore he is lawful, just threw me off.

Really? She's willing to let the butcher's son die in order to help Joff save face,.....

Yes, she is selfish, but so are mountain lions badgers. But in all those cases and later, even in reading the books, I don't think she contemplates how her actions impact others. I don't see it as if she doesn't care, but more than she doesn't comprehend, like a toddler or an animal. I can't call people that lack capacity for higher reasoning evil.

Jim_Callahan:It was pretty clear that the author hadn't watched the series, let alone read the books, when he brought out the "wracked by guilt over a brief extramarital affair" line, since even the TV series makes it pretty clear that Jon Snow is either the son of Eddard's sister by King Robert or one of the lost children of the Targaryen house

Came to rage about this. Thank you for (presumably) speaking up for us book-readers.

Really? She's willing to let the butcher's son die in order to help Joff save face,.....

Yes, she is selfish, but so are mountain lions badgers. But in all those cases and later, even in reading the books, I don't think she contemplates how her actions impact others. I don't see it as if she doesn't care, but more than she doesn't comprehend, like a toddler or an animal. I can't call people that lack capacity for higher reasoning evil.

She is clearly capable of understanding the results of her actions. She just doesn't care.

To my, evil doesn't require that you harm others for the sheer joy of it. It's a total lack of concern for the wellbeing of others. Which she shows.

She's not smart, but she's not an animal either. We have a word for people that have a total inability to empathize with others. That word is "psychopath." Her actions are entirely consistent with certain subtypes of psychopaths.

wingnut396:What I disgree with is the notion that evil cannot have a code of ethics or some unwritten lawful code.

Unwritten, sure. "The Lottery", anyone? Tradition is a form of unwritten law, and it can be just as evil as anything on paper. Racism, social castes, etc. are all manifestations of unwritten LE "law". We agree it doesn't need to be physical legislation. I mainly disagree that LE people can be guided by any sort of personal code, which is typically motivated by factors like integrity that don't mesh very well with evil. Otherwise we need to consider whether we're being objective or subjective. A LE person can SAY they have a code, but in my experience such "codes" are thoroughly compromised with hypocrisy, denial and cognitive dissonance. From an outside observer their actions are as inconsistent as any asshole. Any LE person who says they have a code is likely to be lying (doesn't really have one they care about) -- or insane (the belief in a code is maintained only by pathological denial). Now, you can (and seem to have) made the case that there could be abstract forms of codes that defy conventional human reason, but from a human context I don't see how that's any different from what we'd call insanity. For starters, if someone LE wants to exploit a written law for personal gain but it would conflict with their "code", what happens? This isn't the sort of issue any EVIL person typically struggles with -- their behavior typically isn't morally or ethically constrained. When they do, they often arbitrarily decide they're an exception, like a staunch "pro-life" Republican getting a [legal] abortion by telling herself, "My case is different; I'm not like one of those whores." (Ignore the political and moral arguments here -- focus on the hypocrisy.) Again, either the code is bullshiat or she's batshiat crazy.

kyoryu:mongbiohazard:You're confusing Lawful Good with Lawful Nice. Paladins are lawful good and they can be some serious a-holes. Nothing like strict rigidity to some god's moral code to excuse the trampling of rights or even lives.

That's a poor player of a paladin, IMHO, and should probably suffer alignment drift to LN with all of the appropriate consequences.

If you like D&D you'll probably like the long-running web comic Order of the Stick. Soon's Paladins in that strip are a great example. Miko Miyazaki was a paladin from that strip which exemplified this aspect of Lawful Good characters when she was introduced. She is Lawful Good.... So to her a strict adherence to the law in the lawful IS good. This can mean that she can be rigid, difficult and a straight up biatch - as can all paladins. That rigid adherence to the law can even obligate her to attack or kill people that others with more flexible world views would leave in peace. They believe their laws themselves are what separates good from evil. That means that they're not always the nicest people to deal with even if they are intending to do good by following the law to its strict letter.

kyoryu:She is clearly capable of understanding the results of her actions. She just doesn't care.

To my, evil doesn't require that you harm others for the sheer joy of it. It's a total lack of concern for the wellbeing of others. Which she shows.

She's not smart, but she's not an animal either. We have a word for people that have a total inability to empathize with others. That word is "psychopath." Her actions are entirely consistent with certain subtypes of psychopaths.

I guess we will have to disagree on that.

....MINOR BOOK SPOILERS.....

But perhaps we can agree that her blazing stupidity is the very thing that saves her from being killed, where as the 'smart' members of the Stark family are dead or cast to the winds. Does that fit the constrains for fark irony?

jeanwearinfool:I find it hard to the "regarding lawfulness" label hard to someone who is king, whereas they are the one that make the laws. Wouldn't all kings be considered "lawful", regardless of the good-----evil scale of their edicts?

In truth, being "lawful" in D&D is not about whether or not they follow specific laws. A "lawful" person is someone who prizes order and discipline, is loathe to go back on his word, and either shows uncanny loyalty, or expects unwavering loyalty from others.

But even a lawful person has limits, if it runs counter to their good/evil nature. A lawful person WILL break a law from time to time, or renege on a deal, if they feel they must, or if they feel betrayed. It doesn't make them any less lawful, if simply means they are not *purely* lawful.

mongbiohazard:kyoryu: mongbiohazard:You're confusing Lawful Good with Lawful Nice. Paladins are lawful good and they can be some serious a-holes. Nothing like strict rigidity to some god's moral code to excuse the trampling of rights or even lives.

That's a poor player of a paladin, IMHO, and should probably suffer alignment drift to LN with all of the appropriate consequences.

If you like D&D you'll probably like the long-running web comic Order of the Stick. Soon's Paladins in that strip are a great example. Miko Miyazaki was a paladin from that strip which exemplified this aspect of Lawful Good characters when she was introduced. She is Lawful Good.... So to her a strict adherence to the law in the lawful IS good. This can mean that she can be rigid, difficult and a straight up biatch - as can all paladins. That rigid adherence to the law can even obligate her to attack or kill people that others with more flexible world views would leave in peace. They believe their laws themselves are what separates good from evil. That means that they're not always the nicest people to deal with even if they are intending to do good by following the law to its strict letter.

Again, don't confuse lawful good with lawful nice.

And Miko *lost her alignment and paladinhood* due to her overly strict adherence to the code while ignoring "doing Good" - resulting in her death.

Other paladins from the same order are shown to be extremely different in behavior, not nearly as anal-retentive in the "Lawful" aspect - and somehow manage to not lose their alignment - even though they do not necessarily adhere to the "Law" of their code quite as strictly (for instance, the paladin that befriends the MitD - who we are pretty sure is some type of evil critter).

Meanwhile, Roy, while clearly not in the "stick up the butt" version of LG, makes it into LG heaven even though he, on occasion, uses questionable tactics and hangs out with some pretty flat-out evil people.

Being a paladin is about being Lawful Good, not Super-Duper-Lawful-Always-Follows-The-Code-Even-If-It-Hurts-Others. Good *helps others*. It does not hurt others out of sheer uncaring. The hard part of Lawful Good is balancing those two aspects.

wingnut396:But perhaps we can agree that her blazing stupidity is the very thing that saves her from being killed, where as the 'smart' members of the Stark family are dead or cast to the winds. Does that fit the constrains for fark irony?

Spoilers:You make a good point. Not sure how much that feeds into the 'good vs. evil' debate, but it does create an interesting "smart by being stupid" argument. If she were smart, Little Finger would have killed her. (well, because he is smart, he would have tricked someone else into thinking it was their idea to kill her). But instead he can keep her around since she is no threat. But that goes more a previous Farker's comment that she is more like an animal-- she is Little Finger's pet by the last book.

kyoryu:And Miko *lost her alignment and paladinhood* due to her overly strict adherence to the code while ignoring "doing Good" - resulting in her death.

Other paladins from the same order are shown to be extremely different in behavior, not nearly as anal-retentive in the "Lawful" aspect - and somehow manage to not lose their alignment - even though they do not necessarily adhere to the "Law" of their code quite as strictly (for instance, the paladin that befriends the MitD - who we are pretty sure is some type of evil critter).

Meanwhile, Roy, while clearly not in the "stick up the butt" version of LG, makes it into LG heaven even though he, on occasion, uses questionable tactics and hangs out with some pretty flat-out evil people.

Being a paladin is about being Lawful Good, not Super-Duper-Lawful-Always-Follows-The-Code-Even-If-It-Hurts-Others. Good *helps others*. It does not hurt others out of sheer uncaring. The hard part of Lawful Good is balancing those two aspects.

OotS actually reinforces my point.

On Miko.... Absolutely not. That's not why she is a fallen paladin. She's a fallen paladin because she stopped following the law and started jumping to conclusions, which led her astray so far that she cut down her own leader based on shiatty logic and no evidence. Were she to have followed the law she would have arrested him or at least actually required actual evidence before murdering the old man. But for most of the series until then she was certainly lawful good and her strict insistence on following the letter of the law made her a real biatch. The other paladins of Soon's order are also seen as difficult to deal with as well, though to varying degrees...

As far as Roy... Yes. Hence the varying degrees. There is some wiggle room within lawful good. Not every character HAS to be a massive stick in the mud whose rigid adherence to the law is always causing problems. It's not like a binary on/off switch... there are various degrees, within which is where the different characters - and most people - live. Just as there is some wiggle room within ALL alignments. Alignments are just a general frame of reference, but characters themselves and their motivations can be more complex than that, and may have actions which may occasionally skirt another alignment here and there. That's just "life".

It still doesn't mean that a Lawful Good character always has to be "nice".

mongbiohazard:As far as Roy... Yes. Hence the varying degrees. There is some wiggle room within lawful good. Not every character HAS to be a massive stick in the mud whose rigid adherence to the law is always causing problems. It's not like a binary on/off switch... there are various degrees, within which is where the different characters - and most people - live. Just as there is some wiggle room within ALL alignments. Alignments are just a general frame of reference, but characters themselves and their motivations can be more complex than that, and may have actions which may occasionally skirt another alignment here and there. That's just "life".

It still doesn't mean that a Lawful Good character always has to be "nice".

So, in your opinion, a strictly LG character would choose to sacrifice a nation than his own morals?

Stark chose to follow his own moral code over the laws of the land, the benefit of the people, and the death bed wishes of his friend.

On one side of the equation he held Civil War and on the other he held Pulling the Sitck Out of His Ass and decided that it just wasn't worth it to prevent another war.

kyoryu:Meanwhile, Roy, while clearly not in the "stick up the butt" version of LG, makes it into LG heaven even though he, on occasion, uses questionable tactics and hangs out with some pretty flat-out evil people

I dunno,

I've never seen a detect evil spell actually land on Belkar, and as for V, we are not sure of the elf's gender much less alignement. As for Hailey, I can't seem to find my books (or wallet now that I look) to determine.

Moderately or occasionally evil maybe, but I would hesitate on flat out.

kronicfeld:Stark never questions King Baratheon whether it be a request to kill his daughter's pet wolf

Mega fail, particularly the example cited. Robert appeased Cersei by ordering Lady killed, which Ned argued with, and Ned ultimately volunteered to do the deed rather than leave it to the headsman.

Other examples? Ned challenging Robert's order to have the Targaryens executed. And then there's the little matter of Jon Snow, if the theories hold up.

Poor word choice, but still I think the alignment fits. Regarding Lady, he killed the wolf even though he disagreed with it because the king ordered it. Regarding the Targaryens he went against the king because he saw assassinating them as murder; something that not only violated his moral code but also the proper, legal course of justice. Both instances are in keeping with Lawful Good behavior, I think.

Regarding Jon Snow, if the theories about him being Ned's nephew are true, then he never really did anything unlawful regarding his upbringing. If Jon is in fact Ned's bastard, he again did nothing strictly unlawful or non-good given that illegitimacy isn't really a concept in the North and that he barely even knew Catelyn at the time.

Solon Isonomia:Either the author doesn't understand the alignments, didn't real the books too closely, or both. Littlefinger would be Chaotic Neutral/Evil - nothing is sacred, survive and prosper by any means. Especially by creating chaos and profiting by it.

Now Stannis, he gets his own alignment: Lawful. No good, no evil, no morality, just plain Lawful. Hell, he'd probably berate the Inevitables for not following some obscure rule...

Littlefinger uses the law to futher his own purposes. He is meticulous to abide by the law in his public actions. That's the very definition of a Lawful Evil individual. I could see Neutral Evil perhaps, but Chaotic Evil doesn't fit his personality at all. Someone like The Mountain and his crew or maybe Khal Drogo, as a more sympathetic version of the concept, would be closer to Chaotic Evil.

As to Stannis, he could fit either Lawful Neutral or a particularly strict interpretation of Lawful Good. He sums up his view of the world perfectly "Good deeds don't wash out bad ones, nor bad the good." He is meticulously just, in the true sense of that word, to everyone he meets regardless of relationship, history, or sentiment.

wingnut396:kyoryu: Meanwhile, Roy, while clearly not in the "stick up the butt" version of LG, makes it into LG heaven even though he, on occasion, uses questionable tactics and hangs out with some pretty flat-out evil people

I dunno,

I've never seen a detect evil spell actually land on Belkar, and as for V, we are not sure of the elf's gender much less alignement. As for Hailey, I can't seem to find my books (or wallet now that I look) to determine.

Moderately or occasionally evil maybe, but I would hesitate on flat out.

Belkar is EVIL!!! The angel in charge to assigning Roy to heaven says this with no room for debate. V is questionable, after all that has happened to him/her.

/GoT and OoTS in the same thread makes me a happy nerd.//Gonna be real sad with Belkar dies///Go Shoeless God of War

wingnut396:I've never seen a detect evil spell actually land on Belkar, and as for V, we are not sure of the elf's gender much less alignement. As for Hailey, I can't seem to find my books (or wallet now that I look) to determine.

Moderately or occasionally evil maybe, but I would hesitate on flat out.

I was speaking of Belkar - and the author of the comic has stated that he is flat-out evil. Haley is usually described as mostly Chaotic-Neutral (or as she puts it - "Chaotic Good - ish"). V is certianly up for debate.

mongbiohazard:It still doesn't mean that a Lawful Good character always has to be "nice".

Nope. They can be jerks all day long. They do have to be *Good* though. Being a jerk != being evil. Stomping on the rights of others and killing them, however, does == being evil.

"Jerk" LG characters can be fun to play. Especially if you don't use the common "stick up butt" LG trope. The "embittered, cynical do-gooder" is much more fun.

Heron:Poor word choice, but still I think the alignment fits. Regarding Lady, he killed the wolf even though he disagreed with it because the king ordered it.

Which was partly based on the false testimony of two people that the direwolves (Nymeria, specifically) were dangerous. The whole "let's kill Lady instead" never made sense to me from a plot perspective. It was pretty clearly a thematic decision, to show Sansa losing her "Stark-ness" through her actions that day.

Doogles4221:wingnut396: kyoryu: Meanwhile, Roy, while clearly not in the "stick up the butt" version of LG, makes it into LG heaven even though he, on occasion, uses questionable tactics and hangs out with some pretty flat-out evil people

I dunno,

I've never seen a detect evil spell actually land on Belkar, and as for V, we are not sure of the elf's gender much less alignement. As for Hailey, I can't seem to find my books (or wallet now that I look) to determine.

Moderately or occasionally evil maybe, but I would hesitate on flat out.

Belkar is EVIL!!! The angel in charge to assigning Roy to heaven says this with no room for debate. V is questionable, after all that has happened to him/her.

/GoT and OoTS in the same thread makes me a happy nerd.//Gonna be real sad with Belkar dies///Go Shoeless God of War

Quiefenburger:Varys' and Littlefinger's true agendas have yet to be revealed...they both continue to work for their own murky purposes...so it is a bit early to determine if one is good or evil. The rest of the characters have show pretty clear intent one way or the other.

I'd say Varys is True Neutral. His one objective is to pursue what he feels is good for the realm regardless of what actions that entails, and as he reads the situation, there will be no political stability until a sane Targaryens sits on the Iron Throne. He acts against Robert because Robert is a terrible king, yet far from helping to yank down Ned, as the second most responsible man for the Targaryen's demise, he sees him for the truly honorable man he is and does what little he can to try and protect him while still paving the way for the Targaryen return. Similarly, he sees Lannister rule as ultimately destructive for Westeros, and as such does everything he can to destabilize and isolate Cersei while she is regent.

Warrener:So, in your opinion, a strictly LG character would choose to sacrifice a nation than his own morals?

Stark chose to follow his own moral code over the laws of the land, the benefit of the people, and the death bed wishes of his friend.

On one side of the equation he held Civil War and on the other he held Pulling the Sitck Out of His Ass and decided that it just wasn't worth it to prevent another war.

As for your first question..... some would, some wouldn't. it depends on the character and how extreme they are in their lawful devotion. But it certainly is not unthinkable that an extreme lawful good character could do such a thing. it all depends on the character... for other LG characters such a thing would be unthinkable. Remember that the alignment designations are just a general framework for the character and their motivations... it is not in and of itself the be all and end all of a characters' motivation.

Second, many lawful good characters believe that it's the adherence adherence itself to those laws or moral codes that is the difference between good and evil. Also a lawful good character can possibly rationalize a decision like that away as the consequences being "the will of the gods" and out of their hands... they just believe their duty is to do what is "right" and adhere to laws or their gods rules or something and what actually results is not necessary within their control or even the most important part of the decision. As noted not ALL lawful good characters may take things to such an extreme, but some certainly can.

kyoryu:Heron: Poor word choice, but still I think the alignment fits. Regarding Lady, he killed the wolf even though he disagreed with it because the king ordered it.

Which was partly based on the false testimony of two people that the direwolves (Nymeria, specifically) were dangerous. The whole "let's kill Lady instead" never made sense to me from a plot perspective. It was pretty clearly a thematic decision, to show Sansa losing her "Stark-ness" through her actions that day.

I agree with the injustice (and plotiness) of it, which is why I think Ned was so conflicted about it still at the end of the book. He obviously saw that it was unjust, but once Robert made it a royal command, particularly considering the Lannister's obvious desire for blood, the stakes involved in letting her free grew significantly. Also, given his later thoughts on the matter, there seems to have been a "well, it's just a dog" aspect to his decision that night.

Warrener:Stark chose to follow his own moral code over the laws of the land, the benefit of the people, and the death bed wishes of his friend.

Denying Joffery's claim was entirely in keeping with the laws of Westeros. That whole plot line was an example of him choosing law over what he would have desired, just as his warning to Cersei was an example of him expressing goodness (allowing her to escape possible execution) while also upholding the law (keeping a product of incest with no claim off the throne).